Group 3 Peer Review
As I'm going through each section on your theory, Dramatism, I will offer my suggestions, and then discuss the page as a whole. By no means do I expect you to follow all of my suggestions, but these are just some things that I noticed.
I think it is a little too lengthy; Needs to be "cleaned up" (grammatical errors, sentence flow, etc.); A lot of these sentences seem like random definitions and facts pulled from everywhere - all of them are not necessary
IDENTIFICATION: Similar to intro in that it needs to be cleaned up; Again, seems like a lot of random sentences and sources thrown together - it doesn't make sense; I think the three strategies of identification might be good to expand on
DRAMATISTIC PENTAD: For the most part, I think this section has a lot of potential and would be interesting to go more in-depth with; I'd suggest taking out the end of this section ("The Pentad is a simple tool for seeing and understanding the complexity of a situation. It reveals the nuances and complications of language as symbolic action, which in turn, opens up our perspective") because it sounds too subjective
GUILT REDEMPTION: Maybe create more subheadings for the part explaining how speakers purge their guilt in two ways to make it flow better, for example making a subheading for victimage/scapegoating and one for mortification
Application and Uses of Theory:
I'm not sure if all of these applications are needed; maybe you can choose ones that seem more concrete and explain them more?
What I Think Overall:
The page is sort of confusing and it doesn't give you a good grasp of what the theory really is. I think they mention Burke too much as a source, so including and mentioning others will strengthen the content. Overall, I think the sections need to be more concise and to the point. You should take the parts that you believe do a better job at providing a foundation for the theory and run with those. Nonetheless, I believe your page does have good potential! HeyyyReggie (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Peer Review 2
I have a few comments/suggestions for your page:
1. The intro section is a bit confusing to read and may need a more straight forward explanation of the theory, saving the more detailed aspects for the body of the page. Also I spotted 1 or 2 typos in the section, "to the study if (of) human relations and human motives" and "how persons explain their actions". Not sure if you would want to change persons to people.
2. The Application and Uses section seems to be missing citations. Even if all of those applications came from the same book, I think page numbers or something should be included so that it is clear.
3. The first paragraph under Guilt Redemption should be cited.
4. Under identification these sentences should be corrected:
a) "The "ambiguities" refers to individuals can unite..." b) "Correspondently, Burke proposes a new rhetoric, which discusses several issues, but mainly focuses on the notion of identification." -I don't think Correspondetly is the right word there. c) "Generated when two people ‘s substances overlap"- extra space after people
So mainly I have minor grammatical and citation findings. Other than that the page looks pretty good.
Hello Tianyi! The main thing I noticed when I was reading the Dramatism page is that it's largely theory, and it would be good to see some application. Even the part that says "Applications" mainly contains more theory -- as in, no practical examples, no "A study found...". The page is written really clearly, but if I were reading this as an outsider to learn more about Dramatism, I would be looking for what the research has found recently! So here is a study which I hope is useful, it apparently looks at dramatism as seen in the entrepreneurial process. This is exactly what I mean -- looking at certain specific areas and seeing how dramatism helps us understand them! The paper is called "Enacted metaphor - The theatricality of the entrepreneurial process," Anderson, Dec. 2005. Hope this is useful! Thanks for reading :) --Pjk76 (talk) 03:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that you are doing a great work! I saw you added a metaphor of drama and assumptions.This is really useful to understand the theory. I think you can add more information of the importance of symbols in this theory. This is a key concept that can be more explained in the Assumption section. I also think that the concept of identification is very useful because it has been applied in several areas. I found an article that gives an explanation of identification strategies. This article can be useful for the application section too because it shows the results of a research about identification strategies in organizations. I think you can also create a section for criticism. Gjd31 (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC) gjd31Gjd31 (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is the article: Cheney, G. (1983). THE RHETORIC OF IDENTIFICATION AND THE STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION. Quarterly Journal Of Speech, 69(2), 143. http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.georgetown.edu/ehost/detail?sid=226d431d-08d1-43d2-8d8e-fde9548f45d3%40sessionmgr14&vid=1&hid=18&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHVpZCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=ufh&AN=9936798 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjd31 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)